ONLY CARROTS

Three billionaires want to promote drug treatment. They're right -- except
they've forgotten the stick

The drug war has long lacked a sufficient component for drug treatment.
Resources have been spent in the Colombias and Perus to thwart the supply
of drugs. Prisons have been erected to hold those convicted of drug-related
crimes. The investment hasn't been as generous in helping the addicted
break their destructive habit. Three billionaires want to repair the shortfall.

Unfortunately, their approach suffers from its own lack of balance.

John Sperling, the founder of the University of Phoenix, George Soros, an
international financier and philanthropist, and Peter Lewis, an Ohio
insurance executive, have already spent heavily to win voter approval of
ballot initiatives in California and four other states. California voters
approved Proposition 36 in November, choosing to send first- and
second-time drug offenders to community treatment programs instead of jail.

They want to do the same in Ohio. The Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies
is seeking enough valid signatures (335,421) to place a constitutional
amendment on the November ballot. The proposal would require judges to
sentence nonviolent, first-time and second-time drug offenders to
treatment. Prison would not be an option.

At a glance, the concept makes much sense. It seeks to prevail on the
critical battleground of the drug war, the demand for the product in this
country that drives suppliers across the globe. It would mandate increased
state spending on drug treatment.

The additional resources are needed. What is required, too, is a
multidimensional approach that allows judges flexibility to reward and
punish. The proposal would erase much of the valuable discretion already at
work in the 48 drug courts in the state.

Drug courts were created to provide offenders with a strong incentive to
confront their addiction, the engine of so many of their crimes. Treatment
is the preferred course. Judges promise to wipe the books clean of their
violations if offenders meet the demands of the program. The stick
supplying motivation is the prospect of jail time if they fail.

The combination has proved successful. Drug treatment is less expensive
than incarceration. It also invites offenders to be productive. What makes
a drug court work is the threat of harsh consequences.

Judges should have the necessary discretion to deal with individuals in
view of the precise circumstances of their cases. The proposed initiative
does not allow for such subtlety and focus. Bob Taft noted the flaw:
"Addiction is not a one-size-fits-all disease. Treatment should not be a
one-size-fits-all solution."

A bipartisan and broad coalition has formed in opposition to the proposal.
Opponents staged a rally last week in Columbus. The governor appeared. So
did Hope Taft, the first lady and long an advocate for treatment approaches
to addiction. The most persuasive voice belonged to Jack Ford, the Toledo
mayor. The former drug treatment counselor argued that the "most effective
treatment programs involve a judge and a threat of imprisonment." Then, the
addict pays attention.

When three billionaires want something, you can expect big money to be
spent. In other words, once the required signatures are gathered, the
dollars will flow into television ads. The message will appeal. Treatment
belongs at the center of any strategy to fight drug use. For treatment to
work, there must be the prospect of something worse.